Jump to content

[ARTICLE] What it might take to sign Nikita Zadorov and if it makes sense for the Canucks


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, syntheticity said:

 

You're being kind. Not a chance he's going to take a pay cut on his next contract. He already turned down 4.5k from the Canucks...

 

He turned down 4.5x 4 or 5

not 4.5 x 6

Edited by canucks curse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, canucks curse said:

look at the term and totsl money 

Yup. It’s all about total dollars. Once that’s agreed to then PA can negotiate a term that lowers the yearly cap allocation. 

  • ThereItIs 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, steviewonder20 said:

I think the pressure with Hronek is on us, not him. If he goes to arbitration (July 5th) then he’s a UFA the following year. We need to trade him this week. Priority is Zads and not Hronek and big Z wants to stay (he’s also less grumpy with the media, lol).

No pressure on us. Simply qualify him, and conr=tinue to work on a contract or trade. Do you think a player likes risking injury on a QO?

  • Cheers 1
  • ThereItIs 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, BC_Hawk said:

No pressure on us. Simply qualify him, and conr=tinue to work on a contract or trade. Do you think a player likes risking injury on a QO?

 

I think Hronek has arbitration rights, which complicates it

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, stawns said:

 

I think Hronek has arbitration rights, which complicates it

Arbitration is not a good option for him if he wants a longterm deal. If he does to Arbitration he'll be guaranteed 1 yr of big money and risks Klingberging his future earnings. In my opinion he'll force a trade before he goes that route.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hammertime said:

Give the man 5 I think he will be closer to 6 than 5 and I'm fine with that. 

5 is fine, 6 or closer to 6 is too much. Too much in the sense that there'd be less money to sign a player that fits the teams need. Less money to sign other players means more trades would be needed to get players a reasonable cap which means less picks and assets for continued growth and success. Something the past regime did with nicks and assets and cap and look where this team is at now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, fuzzy said:

Arbitration is not a good option for him if he wants a longterm deal. If he does to Arbitration he'll be guaranteed 1 yr of big money and risks Klingberging his future earnings. In my opinion he'll force a trade before he goes that route.

Klingberg is the exception, not the rule. I'd be willing to bet he'd be happy to take a 1 year arbitration reward and get to UFA status next season to cash in 

  • Like 2
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It might be better to plan to have none of 'our' ufa/s come back.

They will all want more money, and most can show they 'deserve' it.

maybe look for replacements, and not re-signings.

would really suck to lose them, but if you take to long trying to sign them, the other options maybe gone.

  • Like 1
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Gurn said:

It might be better to plan to have none of 'our' ufa/s come back.

They will all want more money, and most can show they 'deserve' it.

maybe look for replacements, and not re-signings.

would really suck to lose them, but if you take to long trying to sign them, the other options maybe gone.

Good point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, MeanSeanBean said:

 

 

if that's the case, thanks for everything Zad. Ride off into the sunset and allow another franchise to fall in love and pay you the bank. We can't afford that.

I'm thinking that is milstein putting that in dhali's ear. Hoping the canucks hear that and think they are getting a deal at 5 mil times 6.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Coryberg said:

I'm thinking that is milstein putting that in dhali's ear. Hoping the canucks hear that and think they are getting a deal at 5 mil times 6.

Guess we'll find out in a little bit. I like Zad, but I don't think overpaying him is a good idea

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, MeanSeanBean said:

 

 

if that's the case, thanks for everything Zad. Ride off into the sunset and allow another franchise to fall in love and pay you the bank. We can't afford that.


Millstein still salty about Kuzmenko?

 

This is why I don’t like dealing with these kinds of agents. They have so few high profile clients that they need to make sure the maximize every dollar so they can get paid themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Rusty Shackleford said:

I think Z has another level to get to.  In saying that, there's no way we can afford to give him term AND dollars.  5m x 6y seems like the top we should go and that's a good chunk of USD that'll go further here in Vancouver.

Because he has another level is the reason you pay the man and lock him up.

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, fuzzy said:

Because he has another level is the reason you pay the man and lock him up.

 

Agreed.  But we have to draw a line in the sand somewhere and there's an amount where it doesn't make sense to sign him based on potentially another level.  

  • Cheers 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, canucks curse said:

He turned down 4.5x 4 or 5

not 4.5 x 6

4.5 x 6 seems well below what he could likely get in free agency. I have difficulty imagining a plausible scenario where his side doesn't start at 5m+, assuming longer term, with the price tag going up for a shorter term contract.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, fuzzy said:

Because he has another level is the reason you pay the man and lock him up.

 

He's 29 years old, everyone knows what and who he is..........he's not going to suddenly develop his game at this point.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, stawns said:

 

He's 29 years old, everyone knows what and who he is..........he's not going to suddenly develop his game at this point.

I'd argue, he did just that in the playoffs. The key is playing like that consistently. I think he's transitioning from the defenceman he thought he was into the player he actually is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, fuzzy said:

I'd argue, he did just that in the playoffs. The key is playing like that consistently. I think he's transitioning from the defenceman he thought he was into the player he actually is. 

 

I think people need to be realistic and probably concede that he had a great playoff, but that's not going to be his standard and he might never perform at that level again......likely not. 

 

You have to make your offer based on the entirety of his career, not 13 games 

Edited by stawns
  • Like 3
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...